First Analysis of Prosecutor Data (PA 19-59) Report to the Criminal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

First Analysis of Prosecutor Data (PA 19-59) Report to the Criminal Justice Commission

Marc Pelka, Undersecretary of Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Kyle Baudoin, Policy Development Coordinator

July 14, 2020

|2

Today’s program includes three presentations

1

Office of Policy and Management Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division Marc Pelka, Undersecretary of Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Kyle Baudoin, Policy Development Coordinator

2

Division of Criminal Justice and State’s Attorney Richard Colangelo, Jr., Chief State’s Attorney

3

The Urban Institute Robin Olsen, Senior Research Associate Leigh Courtney, Policy Associate

|3

Presentation Overview

Introduction and overview of Public Act 19-59 Front-end impacts on prosecutor operations. First analysis of prosecutorial caseflow and

• perations

|4

On August 7, 2020, following unanimous passage in the house and senate, Governor Lamont signed the bill (PA 19-59) into law. State legislators, prosecutors and criminal justice reform advocates participated in the bill signing. Connecticut received national attention as federal, state, and county governments pursued greater prosecutorial data and transparency.

“These new requirements will be an important step toward increasing the confidence that communities have in the criminal justice system by helping to ensure that justice is attained in the fairest ways possible.” –Governor Lamont

Source: https://www.wnpr.org/post/new-connecticut-law-leads-criminal-justice-transparency

In August 2019, Connecticut became the first state to require the routine collection, analysis, and reporting of prosecutor data.

|5

Rich Colangelo has emphasized the need for improved use of data and IT in prosecutorial operations.

“The case management system will greatly modernize and strengthen Connecticut’s local and state public-safety network and provide the essential data we need to explore crucial criminal justice issues throughout the state. The data can help create new laws and policies and transform the way offenders are punished or rehabilitated so that we in the criminal justice system can advance equity and improve safety and health across our communities.”​

Rich Colangelo, Jr. Chief State’s Attorney

|6

(1) Arrests (2) Arraignments (3) Continuances (4) Diversionary programs (5) Contact between victims and prosecutorial

• fficials

(6) Dispositions (7) Nonjudicial sanctions

To prepare for the first PA 19-59 presentation, OPM staff:

• Analyzed a data set from the Judicial Branch containing 300,074 individual case

records;

• Met with prosecutors and other criminal justice system stakeholders to develop

scope, methodology, and priority questions to analyze; and

• Delivered an initial presentation in November at DCJ to state’s attorneys, state

legislators, and criminal justice reform advocates to receive input and questions.

(8) Plea agreements (9) Cases going to trial (10) Demographics, including data on race, sex, ethnicity and age (11) Court fees or fines (12) Restitution (13) The zip code of the defendant's primary residence.

PA 19-59 creates a platform and process for using data to paint a picture of prosecutorial caseflow and operations.

Beginning with the July 2021 presentation, OPM’s presentation to include a wider array of data analysis, including:

Phase 1 Phase 2

July 2020 Presentation July 2021—

|7

Greater recognition of prosecutors’ gatekeeper role has galvanized interest across the country in prosecutorial operations.

Seven critical prosecutorial decision points impacting a case Sentencing Handling of Charges Bail Diversion Discovery Case Processing Pleas

Charges selected by police and sent to the clerk of court Judicial disposition of the case Negotiation with public defender or defense attorney Participation of defendant or victim in the case

Source: https://www.vera.org/unlocking-the-black-box-of-prosecution/for-community-members

Other actors impact the disposition

• f the case

|8

Improving data-led operations in prosecutors’ offices can help achieve several outcomes. Performance metrics, statewide and in each court. Communication to media and the public. Use of case-level information by line prosecutors. Statewide administration of prosecutorial operations. Policy and budget development.

|9

The Early Screening and Intervention program is a good example

• f data collection and outcome tracking.

Source: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DCJ/PA-17-205-DCJ-Final-Report.pdf?la=en

Using this data, the report indicated that ESI participants had:

• 350% fewer appearances before

a judge;

• 94% more diversions into

community-based services;

• 450% more diversion for

people with behavioral health or homelessness needs;

• More than twice as many cases

resulting in a dismissal; and

• Cost avoidance.

Case-level data are tracked for ESI participants, including:

• Defendant demographics
• Criminal charges and history
• Needs (e.g. behavioral health,

homelessness)

• Number of continuances
• Diversion outcome (e.g. nolle,

dismissal, plea)

ESI’s case-level data collection makes further analysis possible: program

• utcome by risk level, relative correlation of need factors with recidivism, and

longitudinal tracking of recidivism.

|10

553 (1,357) End of Sentence (EOS) 465 (506) Completion of Court Imposed Sanction

Monthly Criminal Arrests 2,734 (5,041)

Prison admissions 355 (1,026)

37,306 (*37,828)

41 (112) 149 (237) 274 (1,079) 196 (175) 269 (331) 0 (119) 300 (741)

May 1, 2020

Probation Violations Arraignments 671 (1,749) THE COURTS Prison Population*: 10,974 (11,854) Offenders Supervised in the Community by CT DOC*: 4,825 (4,751) 9 (22) 10 (20) 5 (12) 0 (0) 0 (0) Total remands to prison: 41 (112) 16 (54) Releases & discharges 1,149 (1,175) Discharges (EOS) from Community Supervision 316 (269) Special Parole* 2,134 (2,116) 93 (103) 0 (3) 1 (1) 49 (44) 51 (33) 105 (71) 0 (0) 0 (2) 86 (89) 10 (18) 15 (12) Discretionary Releases from Prison 545 (522) DOC FACILITIES HWH* 732 (971) Nursing home 5 (5) ReF.* 114 (12) Parole/& Parcom* 937 (920) Trans. Place* 93 (63) DUI Home Confine.* 141 (105) TS* 550 (485) Trans. parole* 119 (74) 64 (82) 170 (163) 53 (31) 46 (44) 39 (177) 0 (0) 119 (15) 54 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0)

OPM’s data partnership with the DOC leads to routine and ad hoc reports analyzing case flows through corrections.

The Monthly Indicators Report depicts case flow through the DOC compared to previous periods, painting a high-level picture of changes across the criminal justice system. The Annual Connecticut Recidivism Study reviews

• utcomes using a key criminal justice system metric—

recidivism rates—over a three-year period for each person returning to the community following pretrial or a sentence across four measures. The Annual Correctional Population Forecast estimates correction population change over the forthcoming year to help state policymakers, agency officials, and community partners make cost and population estimates.

|11

The roles of the CJC and DCJ are unique nationally.

Source: https://law.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/National-Study-Prosecutor-Elections-2020.pdf

The CJC’s appoints prosecutors.

Prosecutors are appointed in 5 states: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Alaska. Connecticut is the only state where a commission appoints prosecutors. Elsewhere, appointing authority rests in the governor (1) or attorney general (3). 45 states have elected prosecutors

DCJ administers a largely state- level prosecutorial system with local autonomy of state’s attorney.

Prosecutors are county officials except for Connecticut and Rhode Island, which

• perate largely state-level prosecutorial

systems. Although state’s attorneys are state employees and DCJ plays an administrative function, they practice considerable local autonomy. Connecticut is the only state with an entity

• utside the AG’s office—DCJ—that

administers prosecutorial operations statewide.

|12

Presentation Overview

Introduction and overview of Public Act 19-59 Front-end impacts on prosecutor operations. First analysis of prosecutorial caseflow and

• perations

|13

Front-end impacts on prosecutor operations This section depicts the topography of cases as they enter the court system and are distributed across courts and enter prosecutorial workflow.

Key Takeaways:

• Caseflow is non-linear and multifaceted: 1 in 4 people transiting the court system in 2019 had two or more

disposed cases, including filings in multiple courts and requiring more than a year before disposition.

• Yet there is relative equilibrium in court operations, with added and disposed cases roughly equal to

each other.

• Prosecutors and other criminal justice system stakeholders use their discretionary decision-making to

tailor responses based on caseflow.

• Case dispositions are concentrated in GA Courts, which disposed of 9 of 10 cases in 2019, and 7 in 10

disposed cases had a misdemeanor as its most serious charge.

• Reported violent crime is concentrated in 3 of Connecticut’s 13 Judicial Districts, which also is where

majorities of the state’s Black and Hispanic populations reside

• There is disproportionality in the racial and ethnic composition of the resident population and case

dispositions, including within felony and misdemeanor classes.

|14

For today’s presentation, more than 300,000 lines of data, primarily sourced from the Judicial Branch Court Operations, were analyzed.

The dataset consists of all criminal and motor vehicle cases closed in CY 2019

*Based on matching estimate using names, date of birth, and other identifying information.

Source: Slides in this presentation, unless cited otherwise, include analysis of Judicial Branch Court Operations data provided to OPM.

Judicial Branch Court Operations provided the dataset to OPM.

• For purpose of this analysis, charges original to the docket are reported.
• A case refers to a unique docket number, and an individual person can have multiple

cases, but multiple people will not appear on a single case

• Sources for slides are this dataset unless otherwise indicated.

300,074 rows of data 124,493 cases (unique docket numbers) 81,133 individual people*

The dataset consists of:

1,224 separate statutes cited 56,568 charges resulted in convictions 22,778 dockets linked to diversionary programs

|15

A person may have numerous pending charges and cases, spanning months or years, even in front of multiple courts, before being resolved with multiple dispositions.

1 Person

John Doe Derby (GA 5)

2 Courthouses

Bridgeport (GA 2) Criminal docket Criminal docket

3 Cases

Motor vehicle docket

3 Different Verdicts

Guilty Feburary 2019 Nolle July 2019 Guilty July 2019

10 Charges

Criminal Mischief,1st Criminal Trespass,1st 2016 Failure to display plates Illegal MV operation w/o insurance Improper use of a marker, license, or registration Operating without a license 2017 Forgery 2nd Degree Larceny 5th Degree 2018 Failure to Appear,1st 2017 Failure to appear, 2nd

|16

27% of people transiting the court system in 2019 had more than one disposed case.

One case disposed Between 2 and 5 cases. More than 5 cases

73%

Number of total disposed cases of by people who had at least one disposed case, 2019 1 case disposed Between 2 and 5 cases disposed More than 5 cases disposed 61,020 20,726 1,387

25% 2%

1,387 people had more than 5 disposed cases in 2019

|17

Although some cases, with serious or multiple charges, may span multiple years before disposition, there is relatively close equilibrium annually between added and disposed cases.

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Added action Disposed action

Source: Judicial Branch website: https://jud.ct.gov/statistics/criminal/ Added and disposed actions in JD and GA courts, FY2009-19

|18

Most volume flows through the GA courts: 94% compared to 2% in JDs.

Cases disposed by court location and type, 2019

3,189 3,195 3,218 3,259 3,745 3,813 3,814 3,859 4,260 4,361 4,526 4,541 6,193 6,299 7,480 8,363 9,872 10,389 11,027 11,200 Bristol Rockville Danielson Milford Danbury Norwich Litchfield Norwalk Derby Enfield Stamford Middletown New London Manchester Meriden New Britain Bridgeport Waterbury Hartford New Haven 69 77 82 84 152 188 189 213 244 265 266 284 380

Windham Middletown Tolland Ansonia-Milford New London Stamford New Britain Bridgeport New Haven Waterbury Litchfield Hartford Danbury

Source: Judicial Branch Court Operations

850 4,330 Waterbury Hartford

GA Courts disposed 94% of total cases JD Courts 2% Community Courts — 4%

|19

Cases move slower in JD courts, reflecting the heightened seriousness and array of charges, than in GA and Community Courts.

Disposed cases in 2019 by year they were opened

13% 47% 71% 50% 37% 24% 24% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

JD GA Community Court

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 pre 2015 In JD courts, only 13% of disposed case in 2019 were opened the same year, Compared to 47% in the GA Courts and 71% in the Community Courts.

|20

In 2019, 71% of disposed cases had a misdemeanor as the most serious charge at the start of the case.

Disposed cases by most serious charge at the start of the case: felony, violation/infraction, and misdemeanor by class, 2019.

Felony Viol./Inf ract. Misd. A B C D Unclass . 23,780 11,992 88,510 34,141 14,211 30,650 8,365 1,127

A – 27% B – 11% C – 25% D – 7%

Unclassified – 1%

Violation or Infraction

10%

Felony

19%

71%

Misdemeanor In 2019, the most serious charge on a case was most frequently a Misdemeanor A, followed closely by misdemeanor C. Both groups were larger than all felony- level cases combined.

Source: Judicial Branch Court Operations

|21

19% of disposed cases had a felony as the most serious charge at the start of the case.

Misd. Viol./ Infract. Felony A B C D E Unclass. 88,510 11,992 23,780 321 1,847 6,144 11,226 297 3,945

Source: Judicial Branch Court Operations

Violation or Infraction

10%

Felony

19% 71%

Misdemeanor

A – 0.3%

B – 1.5% C – 5% D – 9%

E – 0.2%

• Unclass. – 3%

Felonies skew toward lower-level classes. Felony Ds are nearly half of all felony cases. Unclassified felonies are also large subset of felonies.

Disposed cases by most serious charge at the start of the case: felony, violation/infraction, and misdemeanor by class, 2019.

|22

Distribution of cases disposed in 2019 by most serious charge at the start of the case.

321 1,847 6,144 11,226 297 3,945 34,141 14,211 30,650 8,365 1,127 11,992 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Felony-A Felony-B Felony-C Felony-D Felony-E Felony-U Misdemeanor-A Misdemeanor-B Misdemeanor-C Misdemeanor-D Misdemeanor-U Violation/Infraction

|23

The three most common original charges for cases that were disposed in 2019 by felony and misdemeanor class.

HOME INVASION SEX ASSLT 1ST MURDER LARC 1ST ROBBERY 1ST ASSAULT 1ST RISK OF INJURY TO CHILD ASSLT OFFICER LARC 2ND VIO PROT ORD BURGLARY 3RD FTA 1ST NARCOTICS SALES NARCOTICS SALES ND DRUGS NR PROHIB PLC FTA 2ND ASSAULT 3RD >1/2 OZ CANBIS DUI BOP 2ND CRIM MIS 3RD OP UNDER SUSP LARC 6TH DISORDERLY INSURANCE MIS NO LICENSE SPEEDING IMPRPR MARKER RECKLESS DRIV FALSIFY MARKER

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

F-A F-B F-C F-D F-U M-A M-B M-C M-D V-I

|24 Percent of disposed cases of by race/ethnicity

State resident population by race/ethnicity

Original charges on disposed cases by felony and misdemeanor class and race/ethnicity

The racial and ethnic composition of the state resident population is disproportionate to that of disposed cases, with further variation by felony and misdemeanor classes.

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 F-A B C D E U M-A B C D U

Black 28% Hispanic 26% White 43%

• ther

3% Black 11% Hispanic 17% White 67% Other 5%

White Hispanic Black Other Source: CT DPH population estimates

|25

Percent of all disposed cases by race and ethnicity

Patterns in original charges on disposed cases among Black, Hispanic, and white defendants.

28% 37% 36% 35% 30% 30% 41% 28% 20% 28% 29% 29% 26% 31% 28% 28% 27% 31% 25% 26% 21% 28% 35% 23% 43% 30% 33% 34% 41% 36% 31% 44% 57% 42% 34% 42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total F-A B C D E U M-A M-B M-C M-D M-U

Percent of disposed cases by felony and misdemeanor original charges among Black, Hispanic, and white defendants, 2019

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

White 43% Hispanic 26% Black 28%

Black defendants are over- represented among original charges on felony case dispositions compared to their portion of total disposed cases. Hispanic defendants show a greater level of parity across the classes. The distribution of white defendants skews more heavily toward misdemeanor cases than the other demographic groups.

|26

The majority of reported violent crime occurs in 3 Judicial Districts, which also are where large portions of the state’s Black and Hispanic populations are concentrated.

1,888 1,625 1,493 621 586 509 440 285 193 121 116 70 65 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Hartford JD New Haven JD Fairfield JD Waterbury JD Stamford-Norwalk JD New Britain JD New London JD Ansonia-Milford JD Danbury JD Litchfield JD Middlesex JD Tolland JD Windham JD 243,675 171,047 150,714 76,930 129,144 78,561 61,060 55,791 49,185 13,986 23,867 19,633 17,849 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Hartford JD New Haven JD Fairfield JD Waterbury JD Stamford-Norwalk JD New Britain JD New London JD Ansonia-Milford JD Danbury JD Litchfield JD Middlesex JD Tolland JD Windham JD

Reported violent crime by judicial district, 2017 Total Black and Hispanic resident population by judicial district, 2014

62% of violent crimes in Connecticut were reported in 3 of the state’s 13 JDs: Hartford, New Haven, and Fairfield. 63% of the state’s Black non- Hispanic population and 47% of the state’s Hispanic population reside in these 3 JDs.

Source: Information provided from DCJ to OPM. DESPP “Crime in Connecticut” report, and Department of Public Health 2014 Health Information Systems estimates. FBI UCR violent crime includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

|27

Presentation Overview

Introduction and overview of Public Act 19-59 Front-end impacts on prosecutor operations. First analysis of prosecutorial caseflow and

• perations

|28

First analysis of prosecutorial caseflow and

• perations

This section uses data to illuminate prosecutors’ impact on cases, including using a nolle to no longer prosecute, and identifies a deficiency of information regarding prosecutors’ use of non-judicial sanctions.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2019, a nolle was the most frequent case disposition, 24% larger than guilty verdicts and significantly

larger than dismissals.

• A tiny fraction of cases is disposed of at arraignment; most dispositions occur several months later

following some degree of case management.

• 18% of cases dispositions involved a referral to a state diversion program.
• 7 programs account for virtually all referrals made in 2019.
• A significantly smaller fraction of nolled cases than dismissed cases received a referral to a state diversion

program.

• Prosecutors’ use of non-judicial sanctions, for which no data are collected, is likely to partly explain

the difference.

|29

Nolles were the most common verdict among disposed cases in 2019, followed by a guilty, and, distantly, dismissals.

21,924 56,771

Nolle Dismissal Guilty

45,701

*three largest categories of dismissal type (n=124,396), which account for 99.9% of disposed cases Methodology: Any case (docket number): containing a guilty verdict

• n any of the charges was

coded as a guilty. If no charges received a guilty verdict but any of them received a dismissal, the docket was coded as dismissed. If no charges were guilty or dismissed but some were nolled, the docket was coded as nolle.

Number of case dispositions receiving a nolle, dismissal, or guilty verdict, 2019. N=124,493

|30

16% of people with a disposed case in 2019 received multiple verdicts.

31,935 14,948

Nolle Dismissal Guilty

23,175 2,030 9,236

677

1,068

*Will not sum to 83,133* 64 individuals were disposed in other ways

Number of people receiving a nolle, dismissal, and/or guilty verdict, 2019. N=83,133

677 people received at least

• ne nolle,

dismissal, and guilty verdict in 2019.

|31

Most cases receive a continuance at assignment while work is done on the case prior to disposition occurring months or, even, years later.

Time from assignment to disposition by case, cases disposed in CY 2019

7% 2% 5% 11% 4% 12% 26% 16% 23% 25% 8% 24% 18% 13% 23% 10% 43% 11% 4% 14% 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Nolle Dismissal Guilty

Same Day

• ne month
• ne to three months

three to six months six months to one year

• ne to two years

more than two years

Most nolled cases

• ccur within one

to six months from assignment.

16% 11% 25% 20% 14% 8% 7%

When motor-vehicle cases are added, a larger share of nolled cases are resolved earlier (16% at assignment).

|32 No Program Referral Program Referral Dismissal Nolle Guilty 101,715 17,256 2,936 2,585

18% of all disposed cases, mostly dismissals, included a referral to at least one state diversion program.

Program Referral (18%) Disposed cases by verdict and referral to program or not, 2019

79% of dismissed cases were referred to a state diversion program.

|33

6 state diversion programs received virtually all the referrals from dismissed cases.

State diversion program receive a referral among dismissed cases, 2019 6% 8% 8%

17% 28% 33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Accelerated Rehabilitation Alcohol Education Family Violence Education

State's Attorney Diversion Pretrial Drug Education Supervised Diversionary Program

Other (<1%)

17,256 dismissed cases involved a referral to a state diversion program

|34

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251664.pdf https://ijrd.csw.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu1766/files/media/images/publication_pdfs/deferred_prosecution_programs_implementation_guide.pdf

Under prosecutor-led diversion: “The prosecutor files the case with the court, typically leading to one or more court appearances, until—generally in partnership with the court—the prosecutor suspends the normal adjudication process while a diversion-based alternative takes place.”

• Administrative efficiency and cost savings
• Reducing convictions and collateral consequences.
• Community engagement
• Defendant accountability
• Recidivism reduction
• Rehabilitation,
• Restorative justice

Common goals of prosecutor-led diversion:

The nolle (“will no longer prosecute”) reflects use of prosecutor-led diversion from the criminal justice system.

In Connecticut, because on-site arrests are largely automatically docketed in the criminal court, prosecutor-led diversion is almost all post-filing. Following a nolle, police, court, and prosecutor records are automatically sealed, then automatically erased 13 months later provided the prosecutor doesn’t reopen the case (§54-142a).

|35

5% of nolled cases involved a referral to a state diversion program, a plurality of which were referred to State’s Attorney’s Diversion

5% 10% 11% 17% 18% 40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Accelerated Rehabilitation

Alcohol Education

Family Violence Education State's Attorney Diversion Pretrial Drug Education Supervised Diversionary Program

Other (1%)

State diversion programs receiving a referral among nolled cases, 2019

5% of the 56,771 nolled cases involved a referral to a state diversion program.

|36

Restitution Community service Return of stolen property Victim/ defendant mediation Charitable donation Good-faith agreement to desist from crime Some portion of nolled cases received a “non-judicial sanction,” which prosecutors present to defendants as a diversionary option prior to offering a nolle. The role of non- judicial sanctions explains the lower frequency of state diversion programs among nolled cases compared to dismissals. Because non-judicial sanctions are a tool employed by prosecutors, the Judicial Branch doesn’t not collect related data, resulting in a deficiency of information.

Examples of non-judicial sanctions

Non-judicial sanctions likely play a key role in nolled cases but no data on their use is collected.

Plea Agreement 45,701

Arrests:

• Criminal 74,160
• Motor vehicle 54,658
• Warrants 17,821
• On-site arrests 106,672

Non- judicial sanctions (NJS)

Next Business Day (lockup): 32,467

Continuance for plea/discovery 124,493

Program diversion

Program- related 17,256

22,778

19,790

14,644

Probation

Nolle 56,771

Dismissals

2,936

Fully Suspended 5,388

No Probation

19,281 6,630 Incarceration

All other: 96,251

Arraignments

21,924

|37

Key prosecutorial decision points where new

• r existing data can be entered to create an
• perational model of case flow.

|38

|39

In Connecticut, and nationally, a growing appreciation for the influence prosecutors have on criminal justice system outcomes has had a galvanizing effect among many people, including policymakers, academicians, advocates, and the media. Although prosecutors are one of many decision-makers shaping outcomes, they are rightly recognized as having powerful discretion to employ as gatekeepers in the criminal justice system. The absence of prior intensive data analyses of prosecutorial operations has contributed to vastly different perceptions concerning prosecutorial decision-making. Compared to other criminal justice system stakeholders, prosecutors

• perate

at a disadvantage because they tend to lack comprehensive case-level data to explain their operations. This vacuum is often filled by less reliable information, including high-profile cases, anecdotes, and qualitative description of their workflow. Today’s presentation used a large volume of court data—all disposed cases in 2019—to begin to depict the effect of front-end caseflow on prosecutorial operations and the impact of prosecutors on case outcomes. Data analysis both illuminated the role of nolles as the most frequent case disposition in 2019 and identified a key information deficiency related to the nolle: use of non-judicial sanctions. The presentation both analyzed available data and created space for future analysis that will be possible, with greater precision and detail, as the prosecutors’ electronic case management system is

• introduced. The case management system’s rollout will have significant impacts in explaining the work
• f prosecutors, from line prosecutors’ daily practice to the chief state’s attorney’s administration of

policy and budget and the Criminal Justice Commission’s use of its appointing authority.

Conclusion

Thank you. For more information, please visit https://portal.ct.gov/OPM/CJ-About/Homepage/CJPPD